Oh yeah, I want it bad...

[olyinaz]

Crikey!!

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewIt ... =205119293

Oly

[Ysabel Kid]

[Hobie]

What is up with the corrosion at the front sight and magazine hanger? It just doesn't fit with the rest of the gun...

[RIHMFIRE]

wow.....nice rifle

[jdad]

All sorts of nice Marlin's coming up for sale.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewIt ... =205753340

[J Miller]

What is up with the corrosion at the front sight and magazine hanger? It just doesn't fit with the rest of the gun...

Hobie,
I'm not sure it's corrosion. Look at the screw holes and inside the action. It's there too. I'm pretty sure that is a build up of dust, dirt, and oil. I've seen this before and sometimes it's a bear to get cleaned up.

I had some comments about this 1894 Marlin:
a> I noticed it did not have a trigger block safety like the current ones do. When did this feature get added to the design?

b> I love those sights. I've seen reproductions of the front one, but didn't notice the rounded bead at the top. Those would look just right on my 1894 Cowboy.

c> What is the name of the rear sight the receiver is D&T'd for? I know it, just can't remember right now.

d> I really really would love to shoot that rifle. I wonder just how accurate it would be? 1930 would put it well into the smokeless powder era so that wouldn't be a concern.

That's a really nice rifle. Too nice for collectors, it should be out in the field killing game like it was intended to do.

Joe

[jdad]

What is up with the corrosion at the front sight and magazine hanger? It just doesn't fit with the rest of the gun...

Hobie,
I'm not sure it's corrosion. Look at the screw holes and inside the action. It's there too. I'm pretty sure that is a build up of dust, dirt, and oil. I've seen this before and sometimes it's a bear to get cleaned up.

I had some comments about this 1894 Marlin:
a> I noticed it did not have a trigger block safety like the current ones do. When did this feature get added to the design?

b> I love those sights. I've seen reproductions of the front one, but didn't notice the rounded bead at the top. Those would look just right on my 1894 Cowboy.

c> What is the name of the rear sight the receiver is D&T'd for? I know it, just can't remember right now.

d> I really really would love to shoot that rifle. I wonder just how accurate it would be? 1930 would put it well into the smokeless powder era so that wouldn't be a concern.

That's a really nice rifle. Too nice for collectors, it should be out in the field killing game like it was intended to do.

Joe

A. 1988

B. Those are the standard Rocky Mountain front and rear.

C. It's for a Hepburn receiver sight.



D. It dates to approximately 1906. These were designed for smokeless loads and were accurate

###

[J Miller]

WOW!!! Answers that quick make me dizzy. jdad, thanks for the info. I'll log it in for reference.

Is there a source for reproductions of those sights?

Joe

[AJMD429]

That's a really nice rifle. Too nice for collectors, it should be out in the field killing game like it was intended to do.

That's true for so many guns...

[jdad]

Joe,
There was a batch of repro sights a while ago. I see them every once in a while, at gun shows and on Ebay. They ran about $125-$175, but some dealers (and not too knowledgeable buyers) think they are originals and double the price.

[earlmck]

Yikes! Pushin' $5 grand with 10 days to go when I just looked. I think I'll the collector folks battle that one out.

If a feller needed to pursue critters today (cold rain coming down on old snow here in "sunny Central Oregon") Rossi is making nifty m92's. Can be had in stainless steel should you desire (and I just might on a day like this). 44mag, 24" octagon bbl would scratch the same shootin' itch produced by the beautiful old Marlin .38-40 and you wouldn't feel bad if it got wet and even a bit scratched in the pursuit of the wily jackrabbit.

And yes, I do have a .38-40 (Win '92) that I am fond of, but I don't think I'll take it out today. In fact, maybe I'll put a protective sock over it and set it farther back in the gun safe, if we are getting this proud of the old babes!



My old baby...

[J Miller]

I've got a really nice 2005 vintage 1894 Cowboy and a semi pristine 1950 Win 94 that I wouldn't hesitate to take shooting out in the rain. All you need do is wipe them down good and clean 'em when you stagger in at the end of the day.

That's just me.

Joe

[J Miller]

Joe,
There was a batch of repro sights a while ago. I see them every once in a while, at gun shows and on Ebay. They ran about $125-$175, but some dealers (and not too knowledgeable buyers) think they are originals and double the price.

How do you tell the difference between originals and repros?

Joe

[Streetstar]

beautiful

[airedaleman]

Incredible! That kind of money for a VERY pedestrian Model 1894 (albeit in very nice condition)? Come on.
(And to further pick, the gun dates back to 1906 or so, and The Marlin Firearms Corporation didn't come into existence until after the First World War.)

[J Miller]

Query: The text on the site states the gun was manufactured in 1930.

Up for auction is this beautiful Marlin Model 94. It has a 24" octagonal barrel. It's nearly new with 99% blue on barrel, magazine tube, and forearm tip, and 98% on the buttplate. It has brilliant casehardening colors on the receiver, hammer, and lever. The stock is excellent. The bore and action are mint. This was manufactured in 1930.

Where is the 1906 date coming from?

Just curious.

Joe

[jdad]

Airdaleman,
The rollstamp ends in "CO" not CORP". It's correct.

Joe,
The Serial number is 344786, in picture #2. The last recorded serial number, for 1906 and in the Cody records, is 355,300.

Here is a pretty good serial number reference check link.
http://oldguns.net/sn_php/marlinlookup.php

[J Miller]

Airdaleman,
The rollstamp ends in "CO" not CORP". It's correct.

Joe,
The Serial number is 344786, in picture #2. The last recorded serial number, for 1906 and in the Cody records, is 355,300.

Here is a pretty good serial number reference check link.
http://oldguns.net/sn_php/marlinlookup.php

jdad,
Nother words the guy selling it needs to get his facts straightened up.

Joe

[airedaleman]

jdad, I didn't wait for the barrel roll stamp; gave up after the serial number appeared. (39 picures for a standard 1894 rifle?) His stating that the gun was made in 1930 and that the Marlin Firearms Corporation introduced the 1894 got me started. My first Marlin was a rifle exactly like the one under discussion. It showed some wear and light surface rust here and there, but it still would have been 85/90%. I paid $35.00 for it back in 1963...

[jdad]

Even though this is a standard rifle, how many do you see with this much original finish and "vivid" case? I will agree that the current bid is a whole lot more than I would ever consider. It's not money, so it's none of my business.

I always take the sellers description, with a grain of salt. There's a guy selling a Model 1897 as an original "Bicycle Rifle". It's nothing more than a cut down & refinished '97 that has a 39A mag tube fitted to it. He even shows that the barrel isn't the correct 16", from breech face to muzzle. It has bids, as if it were original. Remember "knowledge is power". I have learned the painful lesson about not doing my homework before pulling out my cash.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewIt ... =205575563

[cshold]

What is up with the corrosion at the front sight and magazine hanger? It just doesn't fit with the rest of the gun...

Hobie,
I'm not sure it's corrosion. Look at the screw holes and inside the action. It's there too. I'm pretty sure that is a build up of dust, dirt, and oil. I've seen this before and sometimes it's a bear to get cleaned up.

I had some comments about this 1894 Marlin:
a> I noticed it did not have a trigger block safety like the current ones do. When did this feature get added to the design?

b> I love those sights. I've seen reproductions of the front one, but didn't notice the rounded bead at the top. Those would look just right on my 1894 Cowboy.

c> What is the name of the rear sight the receiver is D&T'd for? I know it, just can't remember right now.

d> I really really would love to shoot that rifle. I wonder just how accurate it would be? 1930 would put it well into the smokeless powder era so that wouldn't be a concern.

That's a really nice rifle. Too nice for collectors, it should be out in the field killing game like it was intended to do.

Joe

A. 1988

B. Those are the standard Rocky Mountain front and rear.

C. It's for a Hepburn receiver sight.



D. It dates to approximately 1906. These were designed for smokeless loads and were accurate

###

[cshold]

What is up with the corrosion at the front sight and magazine hanger? It just doesn't fit with the rest of the gun...

Hobie,
I'm not sure it's corrosion. Look at the screw holes and inside the action. It's there too. I'm pretty sure that is a build up of dust, dirt, and oil. I've seen this before and sometimes it's a bear to get cleaned up.

I had some comments about this 1894 Marlin:
a> I noticed it did not have a trigger block safety like the current ones do. When did this feature get added to the design?

b> I love those sights. I've seen reproductions of the front one, but didn't notice the rounded bead at the top. Those would look just right on my 1894 Cowboy.

c> What is the name of the rear sight the receiver is D&T'd for? I know it, just can't remember right now.

d> I really really would love to shoot that rifle. I wonder just how accurate it would be? 1930 would put it well into the smokeless powder era so that wouldn't be a concern.

That's a really nice rifle. Too nice for collectors, it should be out in the field killing game like it was intended to do.

Joe

A. 1988

B. Those are the standard Rocky Mountain front and rear.

C. It's for a Hepburn receiver sight.



D. It dates to approximately 1906. These were designed for smokeless loads and were accurate

###